stock_lhb_yyb_detail_em

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it scrapes a data-center page and returns a pandas.DataFrame of branch trade records, but says nothing about pagination, history depth, or source-site rate behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the domain and resource, then the docstring-style param/return lines. The bare URL is marginal value, but overall it is compact and every informational line earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, the description supplies input meaning, input sourcing, and return type. Missing only detail on how much history a single call returns and whether results are paginated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden – and it does: symbol is identified as 营业部代码, given a concrete example ("10188715"), and tied to a source interface for obtaining valid values. That substantially compensates for the empty schema, though format constraints on the code are not spelled out.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and scope: East Money's Dragon-Tiger list broker-branch historical trading detail (龙虎榜单-营业部历史交易明细). That is a clear verb+resource pair, but it never distinguishes itself from near siblings such as stock_lhb_hyyyb_em or stock_lhb_yybph_em, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives one useful workflow hint – the symbol comes from ak.stock_lhb_hyyyb_em() – which tells the agent how to obtain the required input. It does not say when to prefer this tool over the many other 龙虎榜 tools, so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.